SANKAR DASTIDAR versus SHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 05-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SANKAR DASTIDAR 
v. 
SHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 5, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 91- Wrongful detention of belongings 
-Claim of damages five years after alleged detention-Held, ls barred by 
time. 
Respondent no. I filed a suit for declaration of title against her 
brother, appellant in regard to their residential house. On 16.3.1983, 
appellant locked the room where almirah containing goods belonging to 
Respondent no.1 was kept. Advocate commissioner made an inventory of 
A 
B 
c 
the goods. Thereafter appellant also filed a suit. On 24.6.1992, Reuondent D 
no.I made a counter claim of damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for 
wrongful detention of her belongings including garments and personal 
effects and for Rs. 88,000/- on allegation that validity of a National Saving 
Certificate could not be renewed and, thus, she had suffered a loss. 
Appellant withdrew the suit. However, the counter claim, was treated to 
be a suit. It was decreed. On appeal, before High Court, question that the E 
counter claim was barred by limitation was answered in negative. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Article 91 of the Limitation Act provides for a period F 
of limitation in respect of a suit for compensation for wrongfully taking 
or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. 
The time from which the period begins to run would be when the property 
is wrongfully taken or injured or when the detainer's possession becomes 
unlawful. 1104-C-DI 
G 
1.2. The possession over the entire property was taken on 16.03. I 987 
when the appellant had put a lock in the room. The counter claim was 
filed by Respondent No. I on 24.06. I 992, i.e., five years after the alleged 
IOI 
H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A detention. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case of this nature, if 
Article 91 of the Limitation Act would not apply, the residuary provision would. 
The fact that the appellant had locked the room where the almirah containing 
the goods belonging to Respondent No. 1 was stored was known to Respondent 
No. 1 on 16.03. 1987. She knew thereabout. If she had to claim damages for 
B that act on the part of the appellant, she should have filed a suit within a period 
of three years from the said date. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 knew about 
the purported alleged wrongful act on the part of the appellant. She filed an 
application in the nature of pro intersse suo in the earlier suit. The same was 
rejected. Her cause of action was different and distinct from that of her 
brother. One /is was in relation to the declaration of title as also possession, 
C another one was in respect of damages for wrongful detention of specific 
movable properties. Only because in another legal proceedings by and between 
the appellant and Respondent No. 2, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed 
and inventory of the goods of the said room was prepared, the same would not 
give rise to a fresh cause of action for laying a claim for damages. The matter 
might have been different if a suit for possession of the goods had been filed. 
D 
Sarai Chandra Mukherjee v. Nerode Chandra Mukherjee and Ors., AIR 
(1935) Calcutta 405, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5609 of2006. 
E 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.1.2005 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in F.A. No. 71 of 2002. 
Pranab Kumar Mullick and S.K. Pattanaik for the Appellant. 
D. Bera and Sarla Chandra for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
What would be the period of limitation for raising a counter claim in 
G respect of wrongful detention of goods is the question involved in this appeal 
which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the 
High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No. 71 of 2002. 
H 
Appellant and late Kamakshya Kumar, husband of Dipti Dasgupta 
Respondent No. 2 herein are brothers. Banjula Dastidar, Respondent No. l 
-
SANKAR DASTIDAR "· SHRIMATI BANJULA DASTIDAR [S.B. S!NHA, J.] 
103 
herein is their sister. They had one more sister Bulbul Dastidar (who died in A 
November, l 987). A suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the appellant 
inter a/ia for declaration of title in regard to their residential house situate 
at P-824, New Alipore, Kolkata. Allegedly, the appellant had put a lock, in 
a room where Respondent No. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.